[darcs-users] renaming the rerecord command

[David Roundy]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:56:09AM +0200, Erik Schnetter wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tuesday 19 October 2004 11:42, David Roundy wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 06:20:10PM +0000, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> > > On 2004-10-18, Tommy Pettersson <ptp at lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> > > > To rename it to 'update' could cause confusion with the very
> > > > different cvs command.  I suggests 'amend' if it should be
> > > > renamed.  'rerecord' makes you think of it as a 'record', but
> > > > since it is a "dangerous" command, it might be better to think of
> > > > it as an amendment.  What do others think?
> 
> Make it non-dangerous?  Remember whether the patch has ever left the 
> local system?  Create a new inode?  Allow people to change the patch 
> name (and everything else, e.g. drop hunks etc.) during rerecording?  
> Make rerecord equivalent to unrecord and record?

Rerecord is equivalent to unrecord and record (with limitations), which is
the problem.  People don't expect it to unrecord a change.

It's not really what I'd classify as a dangerous command, since it can't
cause you to lose code (unlike unpull, which *is* dangerous).
-- 
David Roundy
http://www.abridgegame.org